If providence subsists prior to fate, this must be analogous to what we were saying the other day about entropy being parasitic on order. Obviously we could not speak of disorder in the absence of order. Therefore, no matter what physicists say about the priority of the second law of thermodynamics, it must nevertheless rest upon Petey's Unwritten Law of Cosmic Order, or there couldn't be any laws to begin with. It's just another way of saying that God exists prior to the world, not just in the horizontal past, but in the descent of each vertical moment. If there is any order, there is only One transcendent order. And that's an order!
It's as if physicists arbitrarily begin with the Constitution, when it is necessary to go back to the Declaration of Independence in order to understand the "ground" of the Constitution, i.e., our sacred rights and duties that can only have a supernatural origin. Otherwise, the Constitution rests in thin air and has no metaphysical foundation, otherwise known as the lefthound path to godlessness and judicial tyranny. "People often think their love of truth or of freedom is natural to them, but in reality the natural person does not love either truth or freedom" (Bolton).
Now consider this: God is in everything, but God is nowhere as much as he is in the soul. There, where time never enters, where no image shines in, in the innermost and deepest aspect of the soul, God creates the whole cosmos. --Meister Eckhart
Eckhart is speaking of the creation of the cosmos, not the universe. Here again, whatever physicists may say about the universe, it is critical to bear in mind that they are not talking about anything ultimately "real" in the philosophical sense, but simply an abstraction they use to frame and understand their data.
But the cosmos is very different from this. No one actually lives in the cold and dead universe of physics, which is technically uninhabitable. Rather, we live in a cosmos that we co-create within the ground of the soul. The cosmos is a preconception through which we are able to connect the objective and subjective worlds. Thus, as Bolton points out, the soul is "a sphere of consciousness which contains the physical universe in its own mode, and many more subtle realities besides" (emphasis mine).
Put another way, the soul is "the container of our world-representation." The ego is merely an adaptation to the world (both the external world and the wider world of consciousness), whereas the soul is actually a cosmos -- an ordered totality -- that both mirrors and creates the experienced cosmos. Otherwise, there would be no cosmos, only a linear succession of disconnected perceptions and sensations.
Still not getting it? No, Petey, we're not. Could you dumb this existentialada down a couple of nachos?
Okay, let's go back to the first principles office: "as above, so below"; and "man is made in the image and likeness of the creator." And while we're at it, let's toss in another, "the unexamined life is worth laughing at." If we take the time to examine ourSelves, we see that perception is obviously some sort of "mirror" of reality. But naive scientism reduces this to a "horizontal" mirror, so that their motto might be something along the lines of "as outside, so inside." In other words, there is nothing in the mind (let alone, soul) that didn't come in through the senses, one way or the other.
Such a worldview results in the abolition of man, since it subverts the proper relation of inner to outer, or soul to universe, making us an unnecessary consequence of the material world, instead of the material world being a necessary consequence of consciousness as such. Understood in the proper way, reason is not a "higher" aspect of nature, but the most accessible form of the supernatural.
Likewise, we are not simply an anonymous "part" of the cosmos, unless it is understood that the part is in the whole, and that man alone is like a miniature golf course where it is possible for an ordinary person to be a whole-in-One. Furthermore, all acts of real knowledge are like a "conversation with God," so that the belief that we create our own knowledge "is only a little less absurd than believing that one is one's own creator" (Keys of Gnosis).
To say that we are in the image and likeness of the creator does not necessarily imply that we should begin our inquiry with our received ideas about the creator -- which carries the danger of being a circular and self-confirming undertaking; rather, we begin at the other end, with ourselves, in order to gain insight into the nature of the Divine Mind through analogy, i.e., "as below, so above." God is just like us. And then some!
Remember the example of the tree reflected in the lake. Standing on the opposite shore, we will see an exact image of the tree, except that it will be upside-down, with the top of the tree closest to our feet.
That's called a hint. You might say that God is closer to us than we are to ourselves, despite -- or, more precisely, because of -- being so (vertically) distant. In other worlds, he is way over yonder, across the lake and up that tree; and yet, right down here, with his treytop at our toetips. At risk of tossing pearls at your piggies, you can actually learn a lot about God from the feats of clay. This is the key to understanding many of Eckhart's most orthoparadoxical statements, which may sound unserious to the casuist listener, but were nevertheless disclosed with the utmost levitas. For example,
If I spent enough time with the tiniest creature -- even a caterpillar -- I would never have time to prepare a sermon. So full of God is every creature.
Speaking of hints and analogies, who knows how Man alone is able to take refuge in his christalis and caterpult his buddhafly up to the heavens? I love butterflies. They're my very favorite animalogy. For,
The seed of God is in us. Now the seed of a pear tree grows into a pear tree; and a hazel seed grows into a hazel tree; a seed of God grows into God.
Of course. But what sort of coconsciousness grows in a cocoon? I know the answer, but why don't you tell me? For it is written, as of this moment: Only a mediocre man is always at his best, but a Coon is always falling short.
Whereas all beings are "sown" in the world as creatures of Fate, the purpose of life is to develop from this to free will and individuation. This can be helped by a deeper understanding of one's origins. --Bolton, Keys of Gnosis
(All Eckhart quotes taken from Meditations With Meister Eckhart)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Theme Song
47 comments:
"Only a mediocre man is always at his best, but a Coon is always falling short."
Just wanted to see that again - I tripped over it the first time, and had to laugh.
BTW - I got to meet a fellow raccoon last night! Bulletproofmonk de-lurked and introduced himself after my concert, and then said very nice things about it on my blog. How cool is that?! :)
"Could you dumb this existentialada down a couple of nachos?"
Mmm, nachos!
Okay, back to the lesson.
"If there is any order, there is only One transcendent order. And that's an order!"
And you can supersize that order, I bet.
"Understood in the proper way, reason is not a "higher" aspect of nature, but the most accessible form of the supernatural."
Wow! Van is gonna love that one!
Julie wrote:
"BTW - I got to meet a fellow raccoon last night! Bulletproofmonk de-lurked and introduced himself after my concert, and then said very nice things about it on my blog. How cool is that?! :)"
Pretty cool Julie, but not as cool (warm) as your group's singing! Any raccoons in Arizona should come see the Sonoran Desert Chorale. You won't be disappointed.
BTW, just in case anyone's wondered in the past, I'm not a real monk, I just play one on OC. ;)
(and I'm still working on the "bulletproofing" part)
With love and peace in Christ
"Of course. But what sort of coconsciousness grows in a cocoon? I know the answer, but why don't you tell me? For it is written, as of this moment: Only a mediocre man is always at his best, but a Coon is always falling short."
How about, one that struggles to be Free - not so much to be free of the cocoon, but to FLY!!!
"And while we're at it, let's toss in another, "the unexamined life is worth laughing at.""
Just love that.
A solidly packed post today - time released noustrition, and certified O>K for coonsOhmption.
(Petey - thanks for the more palatable Lexicon platter. That helped lots)
USS Ben USN (Ret) said "Understood in the proper way, reason is not a "higher" aspect of nature, but the most accessible form of the supernatural."
Wow! Van is gonna love that one!"
Yes indeedy! That and "Petey's Unwritten Law of Cosmic Order, or there couldn't be any laws to begin with. It's just another way of saying that God exists prior to the world, not just in the horizontal past, but in the descent of each vertical moment. If there is any order, there is only One transcendent order. And that's an order!"
Mucho big meantall rePast to dieJest todei.
Julie said"BTW - I got to meet a fellow raccoon last night! Bulletproofmonk de-lurked and introduced himself after my concert, and then said very nice things about it on my blog. How cool is that?! :)"
Very cool!
Bulletproofmonk "BTW, just in case anyone's wondered in the past, I'm not a real monk, I just play one on OC. ;)
(and I'm still working on the "bulletproofing" part)"
;-)
Now the seed of a pear tree grows into a pear tree; and a hazel seed grows into a hazel tree; a seed of God grows into God.
And you never see a seed fretting over what it is to become. If it stays connected to the Source, it naturally becomes what was predetermined... but not necessarily predestined. Perhaps.
Perhaps the aberrant forays away from the source--or even a forced environmental drought--and the detours around the fallen detritus of the forest will have their say in our destiny, but not in our determination.
Because if we really are from God, we will grow into God.
"what was predetermined... but not necessarily predestined."
You mean predestined...but not necessarily predetermined. Don't ya?
I think that 'becoming' implies a relationship with telos coupled with our free-willed participation, hence us being "co-creators" in creation. In that way, predestiny would be my inherent potential, whereas fate, well, is just impersonal and out of my control; could be good or bad for the little striving seed.
Hey, I could be wrong though. I am pretty much "intrapsycically divorced."
Speaking of cocoons...
That's Mark Sandman, and he's probably high on morphine.
Whereas all beings are "sown" in the world as creatures of Fate, the purpose of life is to develop from this to free will and individuation. This can be helped by a deeper understanding of one's origins. --Bolton, Keys of Gnosis
Just read this passage this morning:
"Ours is a planet sown in beings. Our generations overlap like shingles. We don't fall in rows like hay but we fall. Once we get here, we spend forever on the globe, most of it tucked under. While we breathe, we open time like a path in the grass. We open time as a boat's stem slits the crest of the present.
In Highland New Guinea, now Papua New Guinea, a British district officer named James Taylor contacted a mountain village, above three thousand feet, whose tribe had never seen any trace of the outside world. It was the 1930s. He described the courage of one villager. One day, on the airstrip hacked from the mountains near his village, this man cut vines and lashed himself to the fuselage of Taylor's airplane shortly before it took off. He explained calmly to his loved ones that, no matter what happened to him, he had to see where it came from." -Annie Dillard, For the Time Being
I agree with Bolton that individuation is the work of life, the task to be done is to develop the soul into an individual.
The doctrine of multiple lives should be entertained at this point to give the process enough time to work. One life doesn't seem to cut the mustard; it is too short.
The omission of a doctrine of multiple lives is a weakness in Christian philosophy. There should be at some point in this century a grafting of multiple life philosophy onto the main body of Christian theology in order to beef up and make viable the faith for the next two centuries or so.
Without such a move, Christianity will suffer from the "huh?" syndrome. What is the point? It is not evolutionary enough.
There's me two cents worth. Feel free to hate me fervently.
This will probably fall of deaf ears but Christianity doesn't "graft" anything into. Rather is it a faith of revealed Truth. Subsequently, an unfolding or unpacking by philosophers, theologians, etc... of What Is and Who Is. Unlike Buddhism, and their ideas like that of multiple lives, it is not a philosophy developed by men searching for answers. It is the exact opposite. God came to us and revealed the answer in Christ. Therefore, true Christianity could never adopt such ideas...even for "evolutionary" reasons. It is what it is. And you either surrender to it, or you don't.
Christianity, if it's true, will never die. Because it is The Truth. If it's false, it should have died out long ago. I think whoever says, "huh? what's the point?" isn't seeing the full picture of Who Christ and His body, the Church truly is. The problem, then, isn't with Christianity, but with the individual.
"He not busy being born, is busy dying."
We don't hate you fervently (far too much effort), Greybeard, we just don't place the same importance on reincarnation as you do. One life is too short, you say, but really that depends on the life, doesn't it? Some people live their entire lives, up to their late years (like Hef, for instance) trying as hard as possible to avoid their deustination. Others manage to conform to their Destiny in the tragically brief span of only a few years.
I think many here are open to the idea of reincarnation, but the fact is we can only deal with the life we have right now. You say one life is too short for redemption; I say, one life is too short to worry about the things you may or may not have done in any other life. Is reincarnation possible or even probable? Sure. Is it requisite for redemption? Nope. Would it be entertaining and instructive to examine one's past lives? Probably, but the chances of being able to confirm the truth of those recollections are slim to none, and there's the rub. I would be leery of the validity of some long buried memories from this life, much less of any other. If you would learn from the past, it can be done as well by studying great writings from the past as by struggling to remember a nebulous prior existence.
If your hope is instead to be around in a future life, you'll just have to wait like the rest of us.
And if you fear that you have lived this life too badly to reach heaven, if your open your heart to O and seek to make positive changes within yourself, you may be pleasantly surprised one day to find that you've somehow found your way to the pearly gates in spite of your flaws, whatever they may be.
It's possible, I suppose, that karma from past lives may play a role in this one. That still doesn't change the fact that we must strive to do the best we can with the circumstances in which we find ourselves in the here and now.
AT:
You are almost entirely incorrect, if for no other reason than truth can only be understood by the uncreated intellect. You may imagine you're not engaging in theology, but you most certainly are, as self-evident as your conclusions may appear to you.
Julie/Bulletproof: Alas, though I am in AZ most weeks and a singer in a choir myself, I won't be able to see the chorale as I'm home in CA on weekends. I'll just have to hear the music through your posts here on OC.
I just received my copy of Keys of Gnosis yesterday, read one paragraph, and had enough to chew on for a couple days. When Bob sense something is densely packed, us jr. coons need to pay attention. I only wish I could index OC to pages in this book!
Jonah Goldberg will be on C-Span tonight, discussing his new book; here is the schedule, including repeats.
Bob, er I mean, Petey...
"Almost entirely incorrect"? Maybe from where you're sitting but anyway.
Disagree that truth can only be understood by the uncreated intellect. We've also been given natural intellect, the reason, and the two should be complimentary to one another, though reason obviously has its limits. Perhaps what you're saying is that in order to grasp Truth, you need faith and grace? Then, of course. But the natural intellect can put you on the road.
For me as a Christian, I believe the Truth has been revealed in the person and divinity of Christ. I never imagined I wasn't engaging in theology. Greybeard made a theological proposal, if you will, for Christianity. What else could a brother do but give the theological response? I view theology and philosophy in the same respect, which is not simply leaning towards relativism but the absolutes. You know this, it's a constant thread throughout your posts...if this is indeed, the real Petey.
Christianity could never embrace a mix of philosophies (like Hinduism) to suit the fancy of the people or consensus. Now, don't let me be misunderstood, I'm talking about the unchangeable doctrines of Christianity. The essentials. Such as being human means having a soul AND a body. Reincarnation is opposed to Christianity because it implies that the soul is all that we are and that bodies are replaceable and interchangeable shells.
Whereas, as Christians, we live in the hope of the resurrection of our bodies. Not many bodies, and not just any body, but this one we have right now, though to be glorified. Yes, this is theological, and you don't have to accept it, but that is Christianity. To suggest anything other than that, is to suggest something that is not Christian.
Dig?
at in side,
I was a little confused too. Tried to cobble together some meaning from Petey's post (good theory about whether or not it is the real Petey - I'm not so sure.) If it is, I'm sure there is a good explanation for what he was saying. If it's not then let's hope Bob can ID it as such! Just being open here, folks.
Coonified, I did go back and forth for a bit on that. I was thinking more of the blueprint. The Cosmos determines that it wants N. I am N intrinsically and genetically, but not necessarily destined to become what was blueprinted.
But then, project management is the deuce, isn't it?
:o)
AT:
I am not too familiar with modern strains of Protestant Christianity, but Orthodox Christian theology certainly allows for post-mortem evolution of the soul between death and the final judgment. Father Rose wrote a helpful book in this regard, The Soul After Death, summarizing 2000 years of Christian teaching on the subject.
...still not sure. What does that have to do with reincarnation?
I'm still skeptical.
I agree with at in side. So if this is the real Petey, please illuminate. Thanks...
AT:
But the natural intellect can put you on the road.
No. It just fleshes out what the divine intellect already understands, and rationality, or logic--which your calling the natural intellect--eventually breaks down to it's finite limit. Only the Divine uncreated intellect, that's the one outside space/time can bring about a deepening of understanding. This deepening is called wisdom; as a process of unfolding/disclosing we refer to it as (n), as opposed to so called natural knowledge, which is (k).
"I view theology and philosophy in the same respect, which is not simply leaning towards relativism but the absolutes."
Historically, philosophy is nothing but the process of finite and dual minds' attempting to cognizance of the absolute; a lower level attempting to fit a higher level in it's own domain. Theology, on the other hand, is distinguishable from the "natural born philosophers" of history in its supernal tendency of going beyond mundane world of "natural knowledge."
"Christianity could never embrace a mix of philosophies (like Hinduism)"
Likewise, if Christianity in it's totality--which includes the Greeks, i.e., Plato the hierophant and Neoplatonism--is the most complete religion, it should 'contain' any truths that Hinduism got right. (and there's a lot they got right!) Like Bob has said in the past, the truths of other religions are explicitly and implicitly present within the Christian pantheon, though, the implicit is inaccessible to most people, for it requires a strong natural mind, or logical mind.
"don't let me be misunderstood"
Your not. You're 'understood'.
"I'm talking about the unchangeable doctrines of Christianity"
Reincarnation--the doctrine of rebirth--is a doctrine of the relative, though in a more absolute way, for if there is a transmigrating soul, it's by virtue of it's more Divine a priori conformity to Being as Such that the miracle of rebirth would be possible. This doctrine exist in all mythic religions, even the early catholic church. So, if the necessity of the times calls for a greater understanding of the afterlife and the continuity of the individual in relationship to the natural physical plane, then "grafting" this doctrine into the Christianity is going to happen anyway, eventually. The danger of this notion would be the fallen humans--samsarians as the buddhas would say--tendency to fall in love with their fallen circumstances, therefore damning themselves to eternal hell of the natural earthly cycles.
"Such as being human means having a soul AND a body. Reincarnation is opposed to Christianity because it implies that the soul is all that we are and that bodies are replaceable and interchangeable shells."
It's pretty much explicit in 1 Corinthians what the resurrection means; and it involves different "bodies." Something can't be planted unless it dies, but this is not the end.
"Not many bodies, and not just any body, but this one we have right now, though to be glorified."
The problem is the body that you have right now. That's what it means to be fallen. These bodies aren't supposed to survive; they're cocoons, and a transitional vehicle more Divine bodies, i.e., the resurrected bodies, or body. :)
To imagine your body in a "glorified" state, within any time, is an infantile fantasy, and should be thrown out.
"we live in the hope"
Hope should be the passage to certainty.
It's the real Petey--dummies'. Good lord, just because petey's not conforming to your world views, he must not be real!
Hey coonified, I would have just said it like this: :)
Coonified:
Well said! The force is strong with this one!
AT and Elephant:
Raccoon wisdom #1:
Dont't take nothin' or anything for face value. How much do you unknow?
RR said, "just because petey's not conforming to your world views, he must not be real!"
No, it was a (my) lack of certainty of the views being in line with other things that have been said.
Usually Petey's comments open up more, in my very brief experience. I haven't been reading around here long so I'm not an expert on Petey's "voice" or style. So far though it has always had an open end whereby clarity hits at a few angles. At any rate, Julie seemed to summarize well, I thought.
uss - thanks for the tip! any are welcome! ;)
elephant--i am too.
coonified--you missed the heart of the point i was saying and mostly said the same thing in different words or misinterpreted it.
rabid racoon--it has nothing to do with conforming. it just doesn't seem consistent with the real dude. chill out.
Elephant:
I didn't say anything about reincarnation. I was simply responding to Greybeard's well-placed concerns about the shortness of biological life vs. the time it takes to reach perfection. But to suggest that Christianity does not allow for post-mortem evolution and "purification" is just flat wrong. Of course it does.
ah... I see that now.
I might be a real candidate for the Density award the day. I think I am 38% thinking elsewhere this evening.
Julie, you also said it well.
Dang people! Yer takin' all the good quotes away! What have I got left? Kudos? WTG?
Eh, it was worth it to see yer well coontemplated replies. :^)
petey, that's a complete 180! Nothing was mentioned about "post mortem". Neat how you turned it in your favor, though. He was talking about reincarnation. That's a different philosophy than purgatory. Anyhoo...
Elephant:
Glad to be of service!
You gno, when I first came here, I thougfht Bob was either a loon or a genius (metaphysically sppeakin'). I'm mighty glad I stuck around to confirm that! :^)
If yer really patient, you'll catch a glimpse of the legendary Will, and mebbe JWM or Lisa will make an appearance! :^)
For free speech fans who may have been following the Mark Steyn/Canadian Human Rights Commission travesty, here is how another freedom lover is dealing with a similar issue in Alberta, Canada (my home country)
http://ezralevant.com/
At phone home:
Better do yer homework 'fore you bring out the "nothin' was said" meme.
I am retiring for the evening to my personal cloud, so that is the last I will have to say on the matter. Feel free to hash it out amongst yourselves. But I think you can understand why I would be sympathetic not just to orthodox views on post-death activities, but to the whole celestial hierarchy of seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominions, virtues, powers, principalities, archangels, angels. You'd be surprised at how much goes on between heaven and earth. To imagine otherwise is basically to be a slave to materialism and other deviations that have crept into Christian theology in the past few hundred years. I certainly have no desire to press the point.
Thanks for the reminder, Walt!
And thanks to ximeze for the initial times!
I like that Jonah Goldberg guy.
G'night Petey!
Shalome n' stuff.
Man, that guy can drink!
"if this is indeed, the real Petey."
Ah.
The real Petey.
Hmm.
Miller lite please.
Skully?
A case of Miller lite please.
Ah.
I saw Will in a Night Bird this morning. I'll see it once again, but They always come home. Darn those dry seasons.
Skully!
Check please!
Alan, thanks for the link!
If any Raccoon here doesn't think this can happen here...well, you ain't been payin' attention!
Mr. Levant is clearly a Raccoon in Spirit, as is Mark Steyn, of course.
It would benefit all Raccoons to see how our neighbors to the north treat free speech.
Canadian "human" rights commision...teah right. More like the mouthpiece of osama bin laden, or the american left (they don't deserve capital letters,,,scum!). Freakin' assholes!
Case O Miller Lite, commin' up, Master Van!
Err...better make it two!
Just noticed the whole gnowledge arkivium's up and out. Couldn't help but feel violated, like I've been flashed by a great intellectual phallus; a trans-dionysian phallus to be precise.
Hopefully it will scare off those who aren't among the erect.
Post a Comment